americans and evolution

[sonicbum]

Originally Posted by Jetty3

Give it time.......it will evolve into something good

...well actually, acording to the theory of.................jk

[Arch Enemy]

Originally Posted by Jetty3

"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..."

"A creature revolting against a creator is revolting against the source of his own powers--including even his power to revolt...It is like the scent of a flower trying to destroy the flower."

"When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all."

“It is in the process of being worshipped that God communicates His presence to men."

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..."

First of all, atheism does not say the universe has no meaning. Presuming that it does displays a gross lack knowledge about atheism. Why does the universe only have meaning if God created it? This is a typical creationist tactic; take everything bad, and apply it solely to atheism. One can do the same thing with creationism. And both tactics are equal. The creationist, naturally, will outright deny this. But why is it more likely that a universe has no meaning if it lacks a creator God? There's no real reason. It is merely a creationist diversion. Since a creationist cannot speak on the same level, scientifically, they will attempt to make atheism seem to be a million things that it is not: immoral, wicked, harsh and hollow.

Which is no surprise when you consider that Christians have, at one point or another, labeled every other exisiting view in the world besides their own as the wrong view.

Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness. The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.

As for the quotes; creationism is a blatant attempt at melding science with religion for the purposes of modernizing and justifying being Christian. It is an attempt at making faith seem reasonable by means of applying real world, scientific standards to a thing which crumbles when real world, scientific standards are applied to it. When creationists (and all other religious individuals) stop trying to press their religion as something that holds up to standards for observable things, their religion will sop crumbling under them.

Creationists are making a fantastic claim. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. So far, none of this fantastic evidence they need to present has been able to fit under a microscope, or any space whatsoever. The evidence isn't there.

I think one can be mystic while being realistic.

[Jetty3]

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

First of all, atheism does not say the universe has no meaning. Presuming that it does displays a gross lack knowledge about atheism. Why does the universe only have meaning if God created it? This is a typical creationist tactic; take everything bad, and apply it solely to atheism.

If atheism is true: The universe has laws.
These laws cannot be violated. Life is a product of these laws and can only exists in harmony with those laws and is governed by them. Therefore, human thought, feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot legitimately claim to have meaning in life.

[Jetty3]

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

As for the quotes;

The quotes are from CS Lewis as noted. Lewis was an atheist before becoming a Christian.

Read Mere Christianity and see if you can keep up.

[Arch Enemy]

Originally Posted by Jetty3

If atheism is true: The universe has laws.
These laws cannot be violated. Life is a product of these laws and can only exists in harmony with those laws and is governed by them. Therefore, human thought, feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot legitimately claim to have meaning in life.

It is standard operating procedure for a Christian apologist to point out that all ethics and morals come from God. It is, so they claim, therefore impossible for the Atheist to be a moral person. Many Atheists counter this argument by pointing out that as a matter of fact they are ethical persons and that they know the difference between right and wrong.

"In fact," says the Atheist, "it is the Christian who admits that the difference between right and wrong is unclear; all the Christian knows is what is sin according to God and what is not sin."

The Atheist continues: "What a pity that the only reason you, a Christian, do not steal is because your god threatened you with horrible punishment if you do. I'm sorry you don't know that stealing is wrong. It causes innocent people to suffer and the inflicting of needless pain is the worst of all crimes."

But now there's a new reason to say it is impossible for morality to be based on this religious belief. I's so simple that some will wonder why something so obvious is not brought more often.

Let us imagine a particular person. And just for fun let's call her Madalyn. Now Madalyn has never had religion. By this Christian definition Madalyn is without morals of any kind. Along comes a missionary and tells Madalyn all about Yahveh and Jesus. He tells bible stories that illustrate what wonderful, upright examples they set for sinful mankind. He tells about the ten commandments and how all morals come from the deity.

Here is the quandary:

How is Madalyn, whom we agree has no morals, able to judge if this deity is a moral god? We might observe that one should not worship a god unless that god is worthy of worship. Surely, one would not love a god unless that god was worthy of love.

In other words, Madalyn must first make an independent judgment -- based upon Madalyn's own godless moral values, that God is worthy of love and worship. Until that independent value judgment is made, Madalyn's conversion to Christianity or any other religion is -- to use a very old expression -- putting the cart before the horse.

The next time you hear that tired old claim that you can't be moral without God, just ask, "Let's assume what you say is true. Since I have no knowledge of morality, how is it possible for me to understand what you are saying?"

Another approach you might prefer is to observe, "Since you just now pointed out to me that I can have no morals without God, what standards do you suggest I use to make up my own mind that your god is a good god and aught to be my god, too?"

The next excerpt is a letter written by Einstein in response to a 19-year-old Rutger's University student, who had written to Einstein of his despair at seeing no visible purpose to life and no help from religion.

In responding to this poignant cry for help, Einstein offered no easy solace, and this very fact must have heartened the student and lightened the lonely burden of his doubts. Here is Einstein's response. It was written in English and sent from Princeton on 3 December 1950, within days of receiving the letter:

"I was impressed by the earnestness of your struggle to find a purpose for the life of the individual and of mankind as a whole. In my opinion there can be no reasonable answer if the question is put this way. If we speak of the purpose and goal of an action we mean simply the question: which kind of desire should we fulfill by the action or its consequences or which undesired consequences should be prevented? We can, of course, also speak in a clear way of the goal of an action from the standpoint of a community to which the individual belongs. In such cases the goal of the action has also to do at least indirectly with fulfillment of desires of the individuals which constitute a society.

If you ask for the purpose or goal of society as a whole or of an individual taken as a whole the question loses its meaning. This is, of course, even more so if you ask the purpose or meaning of nature in general. For in those cases it seems quite arbitrary if not unreasonable to assume somebody whose desires are connected with the happenings.

Nevertheless we all feel that it is indeed very reasonable and important to ask ourselves how we should try to conduct our lives. The answer is, in my opinion: satisfaction of the desires and needs of all, as far as this can be achieved, and achievement of harmony and beauty in the human relationships. This presupposes a good deal of conscious thought and of self-education. It is undeniable that the enlightened Greeks and the old Oriental sages had achieved a higher level in this all-important field than what is alive in our schools and universities."

Atheism is simply the absence of a god belief. Either you have a god belief or you do not. If you have a god belief, you are a theist; if you don't have a god belief, you are an atheist. Some people go further and assert that no gods exist, but this is unimportant. The important thing to remember is that atheism, itself, does not say anything about you except that you do not hold this one opinion which is common among humans. It is a way for us to distinguish ourselves from these other humans, if need be, but usually there is no need for this and we simply consider ourselves regular humans. Besides, if theism is a learned behavior, that is, if theism is something that people add to their humanity, then atheism is the default position when it comes to religious belief. Many of the atheists who came out of the Age of Enlightenment (and many today) would say that an infant is an atheist, having no god belief.

[Arch Enemy]

Originally Posted by Jetty3

The quotes are from CS Lewis as noted. Lewis was an atheist before becoming a Christian.

Read Mere Christianity and see if you can keep up.

And I should care about this why? I should read 'Mere Christianity' why?

I can run down a laundry list of Christians-turned-atheist (or even other religions), and name books they have written. You place no value in these, and I place no value on CS Lewis and his wannabe 'Lord of The Rings' fairytales. Let's stick to the conversation at hand, shall we?

Atheism in no way implies a lack of morality, and theism in no way implies possessing morality. These are values that YOU are assigning to the two; you will have to show me how theism implies inherent morality, considering that so much of theism directly clashes with our understanding of morality.

[Jetty3]

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

you will have to show me how theism implies inherent morality, considering that so much of theism directly clashes with our understanding of morality.

That's exactly what this book will do -- and far better than I could argue it myself. Don't let the title scare you away. Read it. See if you can argue against it without cutting and pasting from talkorigins or positveatheism.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

I can run down a laundry list of Christians-turned-atheist (or even other religions), and name books they have written. You place no value in these

On the contrary. I am currently studying the works of Joseph Campbell. Now I know he's not a "Christian turned atheist" but he definately defends a less than Christian philosophy. It has been very educational. I'll make you a deal: You read Mere Christianity (I can send it to you on tape if that's easier) and I'll read one of your favorites.

[Jetty3]

Originally Posted by Jetty3

If atheism is true: The universe has laws.
These laws cannot be violated. Life is a product of these laws and can only exists in harmony with those laws and is governed by them. Therefore, human thought, feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot legitimately claim to have meaning in life.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

It is standard operating procedure for a Christian apologist to point out that all ethics and morals come from God. It is, so they claim, therefore impossible for the Atheist to be a moral person. Many Atheists counter this argument by pointing out that as a matter of fact they are ethical persons and that they know the difference between right and wrong.

True to form you are introducing a rebuttal to an arguement that was not made. My post does not assert that atheist are incapable of morals. The point of the post is that without God, any social propriety that may evolve is reduced to a programmed response to the evolutionary process.

I know MANY people that are very moral without being Christian. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Arch Enemy]

Originally Posted by Jetty3

That's exactly what this book will do -- and far better than I could argue it myself. Don't let the title scare you away. Read it. See if you can argue against it without cutting and pasting from talkorigins.

Actually, nothing I posted in response to you has been from talkorigins.

On the contrary. I am currently studying the works of Joseph Campbell. Now I know he's not a "Christian turned atheist" but he definately defends a less than Christian philosophy. It has been very educational. I'll make you a deal: You read Mere Christianity (I can send it to you on tape if that's easier) and I'll read one of your favorites.

One of the themes of Lewis's writing, evident nowhere more so than in "Mere Christianity," is the defense of traditional wisdom against prejudice of our age that would reject it for no other reason than that it is traditional.

Which is not why I disagree with Christianity. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's an outdated dogma. It has nothing to do with how modern man is "supposed" to think (exactly who designed this outline is mysteriously absent and nameless). Neither you nor Lewis makes the case that Christianity is inherently moral, or that Christianity has a copyright on morality whereas atheism does not.

It all comes back to the exact same argument every single time: "Christianity is better because I say it is."

Which just isn't good enough.

The argument that God exists because we have an understanding of right and wrong doesn't work either; if this is the case, why are morals so different across cultures? Why do so many morals across cultures clash with those of Christianity, yet are not immoral in and of themselves?

Take one of my favorites, for example: sex before marriage. While I've made the argument that the Bible actually says nothing against this, most Christians accept it as a teaching they must follow. How is sex before marriage immoral? Outside of the atypical response "because," nobody has been able to make the case that sex before marriage is immoral, despite it being something that goes against the "teachings" of Christianity, or at least the "teachings" of most Christians. You can't tell me how it's immoral, CS Lewis can't tell me how it's immoral, Jesus can't tell me how it's immoral, God can't tell me how it's immoral. All you can say is, "because it is."

Which just isn't good enough.

[Arch Enemy]

Originally Posted by Jetty3

[/font][/i]



True to form you are introducing a rebuttal to an arguement that was not made. My post does not assert that atheist are incapable of morals. The point of the post is that without God, any social propriety that may evolve is reduced to a programmed response to the evolutionary process.

I think we can agree that a universe which lacks morals and compassion is a meaningless one.

Right?

I thought so.

Since you are making the argument that morals, ethics and compassion without God are meaningless, you are making the argument that atheists, in comparison with Christians, are meaningless people leading a meaningless existence . . . one without morals, ethics or compassion.

I know MANY people that are very moral without being Christian. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Then you admit that a universe without God is not meaningless.

[Jetty3]

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

Actually, nothing I posted in response to you has been from talkorigins.

I edited my post to include positiveatheism

[Arch Enemy]

Originally Posted by Jetty3

I edited my post to include positiveatheism

Fine with me.

Now how about you post something that CS Lewis didn't think of first?

Are we going to focus on the points, or nitpick that an idea came from somebody else? We ARE allowed to AGREE with other people, right? Or is it only certain people we're allowed to agree with?

[Arch Enemy]

Time for me to go to the gym.

I'll be looking forward to seeing what new way shmicheal has invented for saying that increases in genetic information are actually losses in information, kinda' like when you add a number to another number, you're actually losing numbers.



And why don't you pick a book about atheism, Jetty? You seem educated enough to make your own decisions. If I were to make a suggestion, I would suggest a book on Buddhism.

[schmichael]

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

There is far more evidence to suggest that all life came from a gene pool of species rather than a single organism.

if there is such a large quantity of evidence, why don't you try to provide some instead of merely asserting that this evidence exists in abundance.

the problem with this hypothesis is still the same, where did the original species come from?

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

I see you ignored what I posted concerning increases.

How very, very convenient.

So here it is again:

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

These are observed instances of an increase in genetic information that led to evolution.

i didn't ignore it there was nothing to comment on. even on talkorigins they don't actually include any of the research or the findings so what was i supposed to critique?

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

A Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste is another example.

i thought you didn't believe that all life evolved from simple cells?

if on the other hand you do, where do they fit on your evolutionary tree of life?

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

It turns out that several kinds of mutation do this, notably duplication and polyploidy.

where is the new info? do you think that by copying chromosomes you have created new info? you must realise that photocopying a page adds no new information; it just duplicates it.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

If a bacteria becomes penicillin-resistant, it really does contain new information. We know this because researchers have now got to the point where they have read out (sequenced) every last bit of the DNA in some bacteria. This means that it's possible to do before-and-after measurements.....

see directly above. there is no new info, only copied info that gets either naturally or artificially selected for.

the rest of your examples are merely forms of the same example. the mutants already exist, all that happens is the non mutants are killed off leaving just the mutants to reproduce. again, no new info is created. only existing info is altered or deleted.

as for using viruses as proof, two points to note.

1. viruses appear nowhere on any evolutionary tree of life, so can not be used to prove humans evolved from apes or that whales evolved from horses or whatever.

2. viruses aren't even alive in the normal sense. A virus is nothing much more than a protein coat and a single packet of information (RNA or DNA). It has no complex cellular machinery, and should not really be called ‘alive’. It hijacks the machinery of an existing cell.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

Is that enough? I can go on and on. You can continue ignoring what I post, for whatever reasons, and I continue to make you look like a fool while you protest that I have not provided any evidence for increases in information while anyone with a set of WORKING eyes can see that I have.

we are all aware of how much you can cut and paste (not to mention bait and switch and setting up straw men to attack). your problem is that i'm not fazed by the amount of info you post, i'm only interested in the content and, frankly, it's not helping you at all.

all of your examples do not increase info, they merely modify existing info.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

Had enough yet? I'm kind of getting tired of posting massive amounts of evidence of INCREASES IN GENETIC INFORMATION while you ignore them and say the words aren't even there on the screen, myself.

i don't ignore them, i wade through all of the rubbish you post (and there's plenty) and i refute your arguement.

can you at least post what your hypothesis or definition of common descent is? i need a good laugh after the week i've had.

[schmichael]

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

Actually, I posted evidence for that WAAY back in this thread.

You chose to ignore it.

So here's several links I hope will help you understand human evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/index.html

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...Evolution.html

http://www.becominghuman.org/

http://scienceweek.com/2006/sw060127-4.htm

very convincing. here's a selection of the confidence inspiring content of the above links.

"it was speculated that"

"All of these traits convinced Dart"

"The australopithecines are now thought to be"

"The robust variety of Australopithecus has since been reclassified"

"The recent trend has been back to the original classification"

"apparent hybrid fossils"

there are no concrete observations to be found. only alot of speculation and hypothesising. but i guess if you've got enough faith in that sort of thing then you can believe anything.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

Of course it is. Looking at the evolution of fruit flies only has so much in common with human evolution.

as usual you didn't get the point of my post. the fruit flies haven't evolved in the way you need them to, they have merely changed. the existing info is altered. get it?

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

. . . I think you might actually be getting it!

clearly you are not though. i was being facetious. finches evolving into different types of finches doesn't help you prove apes into humans.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

So where do we go from here, shmicheal?

well, i for one have pretty much had enough of your cutting and pasting and ignoring my posts. apparently asking for something five times (your definition of common descent as an example) is not enough so i'm about ready to stop replying.

i would like to say it's good to see jetty back though. how've you been brother?

[Jetty3]

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

Since you are making the argument that morals, ethics and compassion without God are meaningless, you are making the argument that atheists, in comparison with Christians, are meaningless people leading a meaningless existence . . . one without morals, ethics or compassion.

Then you admit that a universe without God is not meaningless.

No, I'm not saying atheist are meaningless people. They are subject to the same laws of our country. They have a sense of right and wrong. It is most practical for them to work within the norms of social behavior. He has to adopt the set common to society to get along with others. Belief in God is not a requirement for ethical behavior. "Meaningful" implies intent, not just involuntary evolved animal instinct. So in that sense yes, a "meaningless" existence would follow.

These are not absolutes for the atheist though. As you have questioned, "why are morals so different across cultures? ". They're different because legal systems and norms of society are subject to change and ethics shift with them. Whatever works best is right.

God introduces absolutes to the equation. It brings a set of absolute moral laws by which right and wrong are judged. The Christian is compelled to love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it may bring harm to the Christian.

Since evolution teaches that life is the product of purely natural and utilitarian properties, survival of the fittest, natural selection --- the value of man is lowered in contrast to a man who is made in the image of God.